Re: why is death painful?

From: <hal.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 23:24:49 -0700

Wei Dai, <weidai.domain.name.hidden>, writes:
> Evolution must have had two "choices" when it programmed our brains to
> make decisions as they relate to death. It could have made death or
> circumstances leading to death painful and made us avoid actions that lead
> to the subjective experience of pain, or it could have made us consider
> the effect of each of our potential actions on our measure and avoid
> actions that lead to a decrease in measure. Apparently it chose the
> former, presumably because it's easier for evolution to accomplish. But
> because of this our genes are now in trouble because we have found ways to
> kill ourselves painlessly.

It might make more sense to consider evolution working on genes rather
than individuals. Genes are not only evolved to keep their measure
from decreasing, but they evolve to increase their measure if possible
(considering a gene as an information pattern which is instantiated in
each organism which carries it).

> So what does this mean for us? Since subjective decision making is a
> legacy of our evolutionary past, and can be shown to be less general than
> objective decision making, it should no longer be used. Therefore, QS
> advocates will have to come up with a new justification for ignoring one's
> measure. I don't think there is one. That doesn't mean one should care
> about one's measure, just that there is no reason why one shouldn't.

Over time, if we switch from genes to minds as the units of evolution,
then we would expect minds which attempt to increase their measure (and
prevent its decrease) would become more prevalent. Those which are
convinced by quantum suicide arguments are like genes which have given
up trying to reproduce; quickly removed from the pool. (Of course in
an everything universe there are still some survivors off in a corner
somewhere.)

If we're not going to ignore our measure, then we seem to have an
obligation to increase it rather than just keep it from decreasing.
Presently there is not much we can do about it (especially if the units
are observer-moments); perhaps recording our thoughts in great detail so
that future technology can resurrect and replay them would be partially
effective. Alternatively, working to advance technologies for reading
brain states and emulating them on computers might be our best bet to
increase our measure.

If we don't spend our time doing such things, isn't this almost as bad
as accepting quantum suicide?

Hal
Received on Mon Jun 07 1999 - 23:27:53 PDT